For Discussion - Vaccines, pt. 2
From the CDC's Polio Disease In-Short page: "Up to 95% of persons infected with polio will have no symptoms. About four to eight percent of infected persons have minor symptoms such as fever, fatigue, nausea, headache, flu-like symptoms, stiffness in the neck and back, and pain in the limbs which often resolves completely. Fewer than one percent of polio cases result in permanent paralysis of the limbs (usually the legs). Of those paralyzed, 5-10% die when the paralysis strikes the respiratory muscles."
and from their Polio Disease - Questions and Answers page: "A vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) is a strain of polio virus, initially contained in the live OPV, that has changed over time and behaves more like a wild or naturally-occurring virus. This means it can be more easily spread to others who are unvaccinated against polio and who come in contact with the stool or oral secretions (e.g. saliva) of an infected person. These viruses may cause illness, including paralytic poliomyelitis."
This one goes back to the idea that perhaps mass vaccination for everything against which a vaccine can be developed might not be the best course of action. "Up to 95% of persons infected with polio will have no symptoms", and there are confirmed to be mutated forms of this arising directly from the vaccination process.
Those who are too young to have their own immunity should have whatever IgG immunities mother had for the first 6 to 8 months of life, and their immune systems are supported through IgA concentrates, certain fatty acids, and other components of breastmilk for as long as breastfeeding continues. The immune system reaches adult maturity around 7 or 8 years, and it's in the years between while the immune system is developing it's own IgG's but not yet fully strengthened that the body is best equipped to meet and deal with the disease without overreacting to it as does the older, more established body.
From General Vaccination Topics: "The infant will receive whatever antibodies the mother has, whether they were acquired from infection or vaccination. (2/13/03)"
and "The antibody in breast milk is secretory IgA antibody. What is needed to protect against vaccine-preventable diseases is IgG antibody in the blood. IgA antibody is basically absorbed like protein, not like antibody. There is some evidence that breastfeeding will reduce the risk of Hib disease and maybe pneumococcal disease. There is also some evidence that breastfeeding actually improves the immunogenicity of some inactivated vaccines."
"Pneumococcus (a type of bacteria) is in many people's noses and throats and is spread by coughing, sneezing, or contact with respiratory secretions. Why it suddenly invades the body and causes disease is unknown."
Hib rarely affects children over the age of 5, and in many cultures it's the norm to breastfeed until around four or five years of age. The fact that it's not the norm in ours doesn't make it a less appropriate way of supporting one's child's health than through external, artificial means such as vaccination. It may be less effective - I haven't seen studies on incidences of Hib or pneumococcus in breastfed unvaccinated children relative to incidences thereof in vaccinated children (as opposed to simply vaccinated v. unvaccinated) - but again the idea that every life that can be saved should be is a matter of opinion (unless you can offer me evidence to the contrary?) and in mine the goal ought not be quantity of life as much as quality. The CDC'sVAERS alone is enough to make clear that vaccination has a much higher adverse reaction rate than breastfeeding (which has of course no adverse reactions and many benefits), and they themselves state that the diseases historically (i.e. naturally) contracted and dealt with by most people in childhood are almost universally harder on adolescents and adults, who are more likely to be susceptible when their vaccinations wear off after the body's natural 'grace period'.
Vaccines against HepA and -B and HPV give a sense of security to those engaging in the high-risk lifestyles most likely to lead to the contraction of those diseases.
Targeting the immune system, whether through the introduction of a vaccine or a natural disease, encourages it to produce antigens and immunoglobulins, making the body more able to defend itself against overabundances of pathogens (or in other words making it 'stronger').
Mine is, on it's surface, a cruel position. Good thing I have no interest in selling it, or even giving it to anyone who's not interested. I am always interested in the thoughts and opinions of those who disagree with me since it's in those disagreements that flaws in my reasoning may be unearthed for me, and I thank you for sharing yours.
Have a great night. :)
All the best,
Peace Jaway
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
Skeptico <skeptico@skeptico.net>Sent at 7:40 PM (GMT-07:00). Current time there: 10:19 PM. ✆skeptico@skeptico.netPeace Jaway <peacejaway@gmail.com>Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:40 PMRe: Anti-Vax hide details 7:40 PM (3 hours ago)
You're not questioning vaccines? Give me a break. Of course you are - that's all you are doing. For the record, someone who says he's only questioning things when he's really not questioning but has already made up his mind but just doesn't want to admit he's made up his mind - that person is a concern troll. Why do you have such a problem with admitting this? You've said you would prefer that diseases "weed out the weaker lines" rather than use vaccines - I don't how much more specific you could be. Regarding your waffle on lifespans - irrelevant since I was replying to the idea that the "natural order" was better. Under the natural order we had life spans of 30 years and I don't care how you try to finesse some justification from that. Regarding whether natural disease is better than vaccines - your position is that it is better to get the disease because then you won't get the disease again. Which is true I guess, but it's also a stupid argument. The point is, you get the disease. With the vaccine the idea is you don't. And I know you don't think that's a problem because "only" 1% of people who get polio end up paralyzed and only 1 to 2 in 1000 measles victims die, 1 to 5 (IIRC) end up severely mentally retarded etc. That's your view and it's morally reprehensible. Seriously, I hardly see why it's worth trying to argue with someone with your absurd views on what are acceptable risks. Even most anti-vax nuts aren't heartless enough to phrase it the way you do - I think they just don't understand the relative risks and are afraid of the vax. You understand the numbers quite well though don't you, but you actually think it's good. Do you have any kids of your own, and would you be happy with a risk of 1 in 100 of him becoming paralyzed? If so I hope you never have kids. Oh and you can't rely on the VAERS database for anything. Anyone can enter anything they like into that database - someone even entered that they became the incredible hulk after a vaccine and it wasn't removed. Your position is not "on its surface" cruel, it's cruel to the core. Also unnecessary, and worthless. Don't bother replying, I'm not interested in hearing any more of your crap. If you really want to continue this, post your views in a comment to one of my vaccine posts, try and convince some other people who will read it that we should just let kids die to strengthen the herd. Good luck.
Comments
Post a Comment